POLITICS - Social Security

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Judith Alta " <jaltak@...>

> The biggest problem with our Social Security system is not the age of

the

> retirees. It's the idiots in Washington who keep dipping their filthy

hands

> into it.

This just isn't true. First, I want to put to a myth to rest. " Raiding

the Social Security trust fund " is nothing new. There is no trust fund,

in any meaningful sense. By law, surplus from the Social Security tax

must be " invested " in government bonds, which means that any surplus

goes straight into the general fund. This is the way it has always been

done. Granted, they can buy outstanding bonds from private holders, but

this still means that the " trust fund " is just an IOU from the

taxpayers.

" It shall be the duty of the Managing Trustee to invest such portion of

the Trust Funds as is not, in his judgment, required to meet current

withdrawals. Such investments may be made only in interest-bearing

obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both

principal and interest by the United States. "

http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title02/0201.htm

That said, this is a fairly minor problem in the grand scheme of things.

The real problems with Social Security--and there are many--run much

deeper. When SS was established in the '30s, the retirement age was 65

and life expectancy was 63. Most people did not live to receive

benefits, and those who did were not likely to get them for long, so the

ratio of workers to retirees was greater than 40 to 1. Since then, life

expectancy has risen 14 years, but the retirement age has not changed.

At all. The current ratio of workers to retirees is 3.4 to 1, and it's

expected to rise to 2 to 1 by 2030. Taxes have increased fivefold since

the creation of Social Security, and they'll have to increase even more

to support a 2 to 1 worker-to-retiree ratio.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-09-03.html

To have a third of the population leeching off the other two thirds is

insanity. We need to--well, what we ought to do is throw the whole thing

in the trash bin where it belongs, but as long as welfare recipients are

allowed to vote it won't happen--peg the retirement age to life

expectancy in order to keep the ratio of workers to retirees to a

reasonable level, say 15 to 1 or higher.

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:15:48 -0500

" Judith Alta " <jaltak@...> wrote:

>Can't prove it by me. We've been retired since 1998 and are in good health.

>My parents were retired for over 20 years and his parents for more than

>that.

Well sounds like you have found a way to make it work. I'm actually not

looking for individual testimonies one way or another. Afer all an

" average " will have people on both sides of the number. What I am

looking for is some verification of what happens in the aggregate with

people who live exclusively on SS upon retirement.

Liking

http://tinyurl.com/3d8n5

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

[Guest guest]

I think part of the other problem is some people mistake what retirement is.

They literally stop moving all together rather than getting out and enjoying

things.

Body just literally has a heart attack and seizes up.

Also if their long time partner happens to be dead around this time its

common aparantly for someone to last a matter of weeks after that

_____

From: slethnobotanist@... [mailto:slethnobotanist@...]

Sent: Wednesday, 11 February 2004 7:44 AM

Subject: Re: POLITICS - Social Security

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:15:48 -0500

" Judith Alta " <jaltak@...> wrote:

>Can't prove it by me. We've been retired since 1998 and are in good health.

>My parents were retired for over 20 years and his parents for more than

>that.

Well sounds like you have found a way to make it work. I'm actually not

looking for individual testimonies one way or another. Afer all an

" average " will have people on both sides of the number. What I am

looking for is some verification of what happens in the aggregate with

people who live exclusively on SS upon retirement.

Liking

http://tinyurl.com/3d8n5

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

[Guest guest]

Sorry,

I just wanted to let people know that life need not end at retirement. The

biggest expense in all of that is my hubby's De Soto. And he works part time

temp work to pay for it.

And life is still fun.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: slethnobotanist@... [mailto:slethnobotanist@...]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:15:48 -0500

" Judith Alta " <jaltak@...> wrote:

>Can't prove it by me. We've been retired since 1998 and are in good health.

>My parents were retired for over 20 years and his parents for more than

>that.

Well sounds like you have found a way to make it work. I'm actually not

looking for individual testimonies one way or another. Afer all an

" average " will have people on both sides of the number. What I am

looking for is some verification of what happens in the aggregate with

people who live exclusively on SS upon retirement.

Liking

http://tinyurl.com/3d8n5

[Guest guest]

slethnobotanist@... wrote:

> It is my understanding, and you can correct me if I am wrong, that the

> average retiree collects 13 social security checks and then they die.

> I have heard this figure bandied about a few times as part of the

> argument as to why a person should never retire as long as they have

> their health.

Oh, come ON! This doesn't even pass a sanity check:

Projected Social Security costs for 2004 are $500 billion (That's right.

$1700 for every man, woman, and child), and the maximum Social Security

benefit is $30,000 per year. Therefore, we have at least 16 million

recipients. If most can be expected to die within 13 months, we should

have around 15 million deaths this year. The US has a population of 290

million, and a death rate of 8.4 per thousand, which means about 2.5

million deaths per year. Even assuming that everyone is getting the

maximum (quick stab in the dark: it's probably half that on average),

that's off by a factor of six.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/07feb20031000/www.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy200\

4/pdf/2003_erp.pdf

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/quickcalc/calculator.html

I'm busy, but I had to respond to this. I'll be back to deal with the

flames in a few days.

[Guest guest]

>> It is my understanding, and you can correct me if I am wrong, that the

>> average retiree collects 13 social security checks and then they die.

>> I have heard this figure bandied about a few times as part of the

>> argument as to why a person should never retire as long as they have

>> their health.

That was from a study IBM did, on IBM retirees, in the 60's I think. It

probably said something about the company culture as much

as anything ... the people worked so hard for the company (those

were the days when men were routinely relocated all over the

country and their wives and kids dutifually tagged along) that they

had no life outside of work.

Women do not seem to have such issues ... and typically they outlive

men by a long shot anyway. But it wasn't just IBM men that felt

displaced out of work -- other studies show that when a man

is jobless, he tends to get depressed and angry much more than

women do. That may be changing as the culture is changing ... I see

more and more " house husbands " who seem to have adapted quite

nicely.

Also the retirement community is changing. I know a " company man " who

retired and then got typically depressed, couldn't figure out

what to do with himself. His wife " encouraged " them to join one

of those humongus " trailer communities " in Arizona and now they

are snowbirds. They spend their days playing tennis, joining

clubs, doing crafts -- and they LOVE it. Anyway, it's a lot different

than when that statistic was taken.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

,

Excellent example of the cost, waste and privilege to workers, not

recipients of all program administrating.

> Projected Social Security costs for 2004 are $500 billion (That's right.

> $1700 for every man, woman, and child)

Wanita